|
|
Posted by Rick Sparks on 06/01/06 05:02
I used to encode everything at 128k. Then I got better speakers & a
new amplifier and noticed how sh*tty the music sounded compared to the
files encoded at 192k or higher. If you don't plan on upgrading your
stereo in the next decade, 128k will sound just fine.
Rick Sparks
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:55:17 -0400, NRen2k5 <nomore@email.com> wrote:
>name wrote:
>> Hi.
>> Since a long time I've been collecting mp3s (classical, rock, pop,
>> modern, jazz, blues, reggae, etc..) on p2p. I've always re-encoded
>> everything I collected to 128 kbps, since this is said to be near-CD
>> quality by many people. Often however, I encounter people who insist on
>> 192 kbps or even lossless formats. Is there any proponent of 192 kpbs
>> quality who is able to illustrate the advantage of this difference in
>> quality by means of a few mp3s (or fragments of them) where this
>> difference can be heared most clearly? I've heard that for piano music
>> for instance it's very hard to distinguish between 128 kbps and 192
>> kbps and I've tried this out for myself with piano music I'm fairly
>> familiar with and couldn't pick out the higher quality in a blind test.
>> So I'm interested in some music to put on my mp3 player (iaudio 5) to
>> listen to with decent headphones (shure e3c) to see if it's really
>> worth the extra diskspace to collect music at 192 kbps rather than 128
>> kbps.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any help with this request, kind regards, Niek
>
>Seems to me that you've already proved to yourself that 192kbps isn't
>worth it. :) Don't waste your time overtesting this.
>
>- NRen2k5
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|